OK Summerlander challenged me to make a rational case for dualism and present some ideas contrary to Stephen Leberge's.So here's my attempt to be all scholarly and shit....I gave it a shot because I wanted to organise my ideas and beliefs about the phase at this point. I'm not committed to any one idea really,I just find that materialism denies what's obviously true (that we are conscious agents) AND dismisses things that have supporting evidence.It's a matter of interpretation in some ways...Anyway here it is,probably full of mistakes and maybe some fallacies but open fire anyway!
The Mind Is Not Equal To Brain Material, it is Real and Variably Separable
Here I have intended to construct a summarized argument for the reality of our mental world(s) as being something existentially separable and not wholly constituted by the material brain. I will not try to rule out the idea of a functional relationship between the material brain and the mind as it is almost indisputable that damage to the material brain affects the mind. Certain idealistic philosophies may account for this fact but I will exclude such arguments and start from the premise that a material world does in fact exist.
I will address the mental states we call Dreams, Lucid Dreams, OBEs, and NDEs and will attempt to counter the conventional assertion that they are “illusionsâ€
Last edited by Jeff on Wed May 30, 2012 12:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The closer you get to the meaning;the sooner you'll know that you're dreaming" -Dio
I Agree, I think of consciousness like a separate entity than can use the physical brain to control the body. Here's my analogy below:
Consciousness is like the user of a computer. The user controls the actions of the computer using a keyboard, mouse, webcam, microphone and other input devices you can plug into the computer. The output devices such as the monitor, printer and speakers send information back to the user who thinks about the output they receive and then decides what to input back into the computer as a response.
Overall the brain/computer is nothing more than a medium used to send data (control the body/computer) and receive data (monitor/eyes, speakers/ears) however it doesn't do any actual thinking by itself. Thinking is what the computer user/consciousness does and not the brain/input devices. Saying the physical brain does all the thinking is like saying your computer keyboard does all the thinking.
Ever seen a conscious keyboard typing without a user? It's impossible... Unless it has been programmed to do so however this would just be imitating consciousness. This is similar to a dead person having a machine "breath" for them by pumping air in and out of their lungs. The person is not alive yet the body is performing the action "breathing". It's not controlled by consciousness however and is only emulating an action that consciousness can perform.
Once a person is dead their consciousness is separated from their physical brain. The physical brain is still there but... Do you see the body walking around and talking? No, because the computer user is not at the computer/consciousness has separated and is no longer sending input and receiving output to the body/computer.
Some people state that consciousness is not separate from the physical brain because if the brain gets damaged it makes a person retarded, insane or crazy. Of course it will... If the brain is damaged then the input and output that the consciousness sends and receives to and from the body through it will be corrupted.
Imagine trying to operate a computer without the screen/monitor while using a keyboard and mouse with damaged cords. Not only would you not be able to see what your doing but even if you had a general idea about what you thought was going on you still wouldn't be able to do anything properly because the mouse movements would be jagged and the keyboard would only partially send what you type to the computer. If someone was viewing the output of your computer that is meant to be displayed on your nonexistant screen over the Internet they wouldn't be seeing you (conciousness). Instead they would be seeing a computer desktop or program that seems like it is being controlled by a spastic.
Unless you can prove that consciousness is not separate from the physcial brain, the "theory" of the phase being an internal experience/personal mind creation is entirally wrong. In otherwords, the afterlife has just been proven to be real and accessible once your conciousness separates from your physical body. Don't agree with me? I'll actually tell you how you can prove me wrong rather than just saying "Prove It".
Ever heard of a singularity? It's the theory that a computer can gain consciousness. The idea is that computer code has become so advanced these days that when programmers (including myself when I used to write software and games) run programs they've made, the results are sometimes unexpected. This occurs when two parts of code work together to form a new event not intentionally coded by a programmer. This is usually called a "bug" and requires either tweaking of the code or extra code to counteract it unless they wish to keep it.
The singularity theory extends this idea by stating that if enough code exists within a program it may get to the point where it can browse the Internet, obtain and store information and create its own code to research stuff for itself further. In other words the computer program is conscious and can learn, evolve and improve itself without human interaction or prewritten code telling it exactly what to do.
The existence of a singularity is yet to be proven however scientists predict singularities will be a reality by around 2040 due to extremely advanced software with automatically generated code and enough computing power to store and run such a "program". As of today however anything controlled by a computer that seems conscious is just imitating consciousness and does not actually think for itself. I'll give you an example.
In the 2009 video game "The Sims 3" the player controls a "sim" (simulated person) and makes them carry out their daily life. The player clicks on objects like a fridge and toilet to satisfy needs such as "bladder" and "hunger" which are represented to the user as a bar of the satisfaction level of each need. These bars are programmed to go up and down when the sim (controlled by the player) performs specific activities.
An interesting thing happens however when the user activates "Free Will Mode" and allows the computer to control the sim without user interaction. When this happens the sim will eat when it's hunger, shower when it's dirty, go to bed when it's tired and play games or read when it's bored. You think that's amazing? There more!
In free will mode the sim will also go to work, study/improve its skills to increase its chances of being promoted, form relationships and interact with other Sims using a variety of different actions, get "attracted" to another Sim then perform interactions eventually building up to proposing marriage and finnally having sex leading to the birth of a child. The parent Sims will send their child or children (if its twins or tripplets) to school and raise them so they learn the necessities for becoming an adult themselves. Sims can (but dont always) do all this by themselves yet they lack any consciousness whatsoever.
Computers don't really have emotions however and only are taught how to respond to certain things. For example when a sim is insulted they will either be upset or angry depending on their randomly generated traits such as "emotional". Sims only make "decisions" using random generation or based on their need, mood and relationship bars. Their decisions are not truly thought up and only are based on what's available and has been programmed. In other words they can't do anything "new". When they become scientists and invent/discover potions they are only making hidden bits of code visible and usable.
Although Sims can do a lot of things they don't do everything real humans would do. For example they don't know how to deal with money... If left alone they will become rich but they will never spend their money on anything else but food. They won't buy new objects and furniture because they don't know what "looks good" and where to place it once the get it. There is no such thing as "aesthetically pleasing" to a sim because it's extremely hard to program and its something that varies dramatically between different people.
So sceptics... Go ahead and say "Consciousness is not separate from the physical brain". If you do however you must fully agree that computers can gain consciousness rather than imitate it. If you don't agree with computers gaining consciousness or consciousness being separate from your physical brain then there's one more option... All of us are simply "Sims" with limited "free will".
Do you believe humans are nothing more than snippets of code in a computer program able to think and do only what's been pre-coded? If so you sceptics have just proven the existence of a god able to control our every action unless they put us on "free will mode" which would result in us only doing what's been programmed by them. In other words we are all "stuck in the computer box" unable to escape and anything "supernatural" that physically happens (e.g. Someone disappearing in the bermuda triangle) is simply a bug/error in the code that makes up our world.
Last edited by 12padams on Wed May 30, 2012 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
[center]Can't experience the phase?
Check out my free ebooks and video recreations of actual phase experiences.
12padams,
I like your analogies.I can accept that the 'brain is a computer' but I do not accept that the mind is it's by product.Personally I'm doubtful that A.I. will ever create a conscious robot.Even if it did there seems to be no way to prove that it would not just mimic conscious human behavior.This is an important point made by the 'Chinese Room' and 'Chinese Nation' thought experiments.
There is a very interesting argument that demonstrates that we are not 'software' running on the 'hardware' of the brain called "The Missing Instruction Argument".When I get a chance I'll try to put it into my own words and post it. (copyrights are a big deal nowadays. Violating them is considered 'cyber terrorism' in today's corporate fascist dominated world)
The Sims analogy is another story. We have no way of knowing really. It could be,we ourselves certainly are not the rule makers of the apparent material universe. You might enjoy reading at this link: http://www.unmaterialism.net/Argument.html
Last edited by Jeff on Tue May 29, 2012 11:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The closer you get to the meaning;the sooner you'll know that you're dreaming" -Dio
I haven't read all the previous information, but i get the gist of what is being said.
If the universe is based on mathematical laws, it could be considered that a 'brain' could be created, or in this case A.I., purely using mathematical algorithms. The question on whether this A.I. would have any free will is a perplexing one, i would assume not, but assumption is the mother of all......... As for us having free will, well its as easy as raising your arm, or not. Clearly the choice is up to you.
As for the reality of the phase, perhaps we consider that all there is is matter, and mind. The eternal question of 'does anything exist if there is no one/nothing to experience it'? Surely matter is completely pointless without mind.
So perhaps the whole universe is actually a creation of mind, rather than mind being a creation of matter. Matter, has substance, whereas mind is intangible, it is 0, and everything that comprises matter is 1 and up. If 0 is 'real' and we experience it as 'mind', then how could the phase be anything but 'real', it may not be physically real, but again we come back to the question of observation, is that which is real, only real, because it is being observed? Does 'real' mean physical? Your emotions aren't physical but you would never say they aren't real!
I often get stumped when trying to explain my thoughts in this manner, it works in my head but putting it into words is a whole different ball game. Mind expressing itself through matter, albeit imperfectly.
I think using light to express mind is quite beautiful (if i can present it eloquently enough). When one reaches a state of 'knowing god' it may be called enlightenment, being everything at the same time, knowing everything.
Light is massless, it is everywhere, all at the same time, it doesn't experience time or space. Mind is also massless (unless it is of course, just the brain). When someone dies, perhaps they literally enter the light, the realm of 'mind', infinity and zero all at the same time.
E=MC2
According to this equation, light would have 0 energy, as it has no mass. Either Einstein was wrong, or there is more to light than 'meets the eye'.
Actually, light does not have rest mass but it does have energy and it is capable of causing electronic excitation within molecules. This will, in turn, change the chemistry of something. The relationship between light and melatonin? Photosynthesis anyone?
It is also worth checking material on Compton scattering experiment which reinforces the idea that light is quantised.
Definition of Compton scattering from Wiki: "In physics, Compton scattering is a type of scattering that X-rays and gamma rays (both photons with different energy ranges) undergo in matter. The elastic scattering of photons in matter results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of an X-ray or gamma ray photon, called the Compton effect. Part of the energy of the X/gamma ray is transferred to a scattering electron, which recoils and is ejected from its atom (which becomes ionized), and the rest of the energy is taken by the scattered, "degraded" photon. Inverse Compton scattering also exists, in which a charged particle transfers part of its energy to a photon."
Also from wiki on photons and why it is, not only natural, but ESSENTIAL that they are the way they are: "The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry. The photon concept has led to momentous advances in experimental and theoretical physics, such as lasers, Bose–Einstein condensation, quantum field theory, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. It has been applied to photochemistry, high-resolution microscopy, and measurements of molecular distances.
The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time.[21] Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons."
At the moment, the nature of light is best explained by quantum theory. A good book to read on the nature of reality - including the behaviour of light - is Brian Cox's The Quantum Universe. It dispels many myths and New Age tripe that have been spread in the name of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - which logically acknowledges that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems.
As for us having free will, well its as easy as raising your arm, or not. Clearly the choice is up to you.
Actually, it's not. It goes deeper than that. check out this link here where me/bluremi and Jeff argue both sides of the coin: http://obe4u.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=1
THE PHASE = waking consciousness during sleep hybridisation at 40Hz of brainwave activity conducive to lucid dreaming and autoscopy.
Obviously light has energy and can interact with matter, perhaps its the bridge between mind and matter. The compton effect to me seems to be just stating what happens when there is energy transfer between light and matter. The problem with assessing light, and the speed of photons, is that it is always relative to the speed one is traveling.
To roughly quote Brian Cox, it takes 8 minutes for light from the sun to reach the earth, but thats only from our frame of reference, for light, it takes no time. It is everywhere, all the time. So he is confirming that light experiences no time, and therefore no space, or perhaps 'infinite' or 'all' space.
My maths knowledge isn't great, but im sure the mass of an object is also relative to the speed of light, when any object hits the speed of light, the mathematical formula, supposedly, implies that the object would have infinite mass.
That link is unreliable and biased. There is an issue of God and religion covered in Newscientist. It provides a good theory, backed by legit psychological experiments, in which humans are prone to believing in invisible agents and magic from an early age and why that is. It goes as far as to say that religion was an inevitable idea that actually helped to create civilisation and control.
Now, that we have come this far, atheists propose that we no longer need religion and the notion of a God in order to be cooperative in society and to be kind to each other. Laws and empathy should be enough. Our consciousness has evolved to the point where it doesn't need such delusions.
By the way. Consciousness is not an illusion in the way that you think it is - or that you think the summit guys are proposing. Consciousness is a real manifestation! But one that does not require magic or the paranormal. It is a natural occurrence that we will soon get to the bottom of and unravel the fact that it is a physical matter phenomenon. And quantum mechanics doesn't equate with magic either:
"Quantum mechanics is weird, but not weird enough to allow a grain of sand to hop unaided out of a matchbox."
- Brian Cox
THE PHASE = waking consciousness during sleep hybridisation at 40Hz of brainwave activity conducive to lucid dreaming and autoscopy.
Interpretation is nowadays a matter of idyosincrasy.
Russians for example tend to think as Pavlov and all the comunism references.
But if we forget all the tendencies and try to get more clear definitions, with no vanity or motivation only for "power", the most reasonable way to explain many "mind states" is to consider multiple dimensions, even as quantum physics analogy.
Materialism is also a creed and have produced a lot of fanaticism!
A change of paradigm is necessary when we want to explain things from a stagnant point of view , as general relativity and quantum physics cannot meet in the old paradigm.
Charles Tart has a brilliant vision at this point (see "End of Materialism")
